Those who think that the huge spill resulting from the BP offshore well disaster was unavoidable should know that BP uses a safety device called an acoustical regulator on all its offshore wells, which could have closed the well when the manual controls failed. BP uses the device by law on wells off Brazil and in Norway's North Sea. BP voluntarily uses the device on the wells in Britain's North Sea operation and elsewhere in the world as do most other major oil companies. However, in 2001 Dick Cheney met with oil industry leaders and asked them for input on changes to US regulations. BP said the acoustical regulator was too expensive at $500,000 so the Bush Administration waived that requirement. At $14 billion each the estimated cost of the clean up and BP's profit in 2009 are each 28,000 times greater than the cost of the acoustical regulator.
Americans will never know the full extent of the damage to the world, not just America, for which the Bush administration is solely responsible.
Welcome to My Blog. I rant. I prefer to rave but I have many more opportunities to rant. Until now I have ranted to my friends via e-mail. So that I might keep some friends I'll rant here from now on. My friends can come here on a volunteer basis to read my rants. When I have to rave I'll use e-mail so that my friends won't miss out.
Showing posts with label Cheney. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Cheney. Show all posts
Thursday, May 06, 2010
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Former Interrogator Rebukes Cheney For Torture Speech
Former Interrogator Rebukes Cheney For Torture Speech
Cheney, said Matthew Alexander, a 14-year US military interrogator, fundamentally misunderstands the way America is viewed around the world. The American principles of freedom and democracy are cherished in the Muslim world and the idea, at least, of America is still a seductive one. But it is the behavior of the Bush administration at Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib and secret prisons around the globe that undercuts that image, allowing Al Qaeda to make the argument that America isn't what it stands for.
"Remember," said Alexander, "one of Al Qaeda's goals, it's not just to attack the United States, it's to prove that we're hypocrites, that we don't live up to American principles. So when we use torture and abuse, we're playing directly into one of their stated goals."
Cheney, said Matthew Alexander, a 14-year US military interrogator, fundamentally misunderstands the way America is viewed around the world. The American principles of freedom and democracy are cherished in the Muslim world and the idea, at least, of America is still a seductive one. But it is the behavior of the Bush administration at Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib and secret prisons around the globe that undercuts that image, allowing Al Qaeda to make the argument that America isn't what it stands for.
"Remember," said Alexander, "one of Al Qaeda's goals, it's not just to attack the United States, it's to prove that we're hypocrites, that we don't live up to American principles. So when we use torture and abuse, we're playing directly into one of their stated goals."
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Secret CIA Program - A Legal Not Political Matter
CIA Director Leon Panetta recently disclosed to Congress a secret CIA program authorized by Dick Cheney in 2001. By order of Dick Cheney, Congress was never briefed on the program. This act alone is a violation of federal law. If Cheney did not want Congress to know that the program existed then one can only conclude that Congress would not have approved of the program's activities because those activities also violate the federal law or international treaty.
The GOP would have us believe that an investigation of the secret program would only be motivated by politics for the purpose of damaging the GOP and members of the Bush Administration. They further claim that the investigation would embarrass the US and likely threaten US security. John McCain asked, "What's going to be the positive result from airing out and ventilating details of what we already knew took place and should never have? "And," added McCain, "we are committed to making sure it never happens again." McCain would have a stronger argument against an investigation if the guilty admitted their wrong doing and condemned their own acts. Without that the nation has not adequately admitted that wrongs were done, never should have been done and should not be done again. Without a full admission of guilt those who believe that wrongs were not done will commit, or permit others to commit, the same wrongs in the future.
I agree that a political motivation exists but politics must not also prevent the US from investigating criminal activity, especially within the government, and prosecuting those responsible for it. The US has already lost moral ground with other nations and the only way to recover it is to thoroughly investigate and prosecute these crimes. Finally, the only way to ensure that future administrations do not violate the law is to demonstrate that future violations will not go unpunished by punishing the violators within the Bush Administration.
I don't doubt that the country will be deeply split if the Department of Justice proceeds with this investigation but that is not a reason to ignore criminal acts. The country has been deeply split before and each time has risen from it a better country for fully enforcing our Constitution. The strongest example is the secession of the Southern slave states following the election of Abe Lincoln who campaigned against the expansion of slavery. The cost of doing the right thing was high but the need was greater.
Our Constitution is only as powerful as our commitment to enforce it. Enforcing the Constitution is not "politics as usual" it is a matter of Law and the survival of our Constitution.
The GOP would have us believe that an investigation of the secret program would only be motivated by politics for the purpose of damaging the GOP and members of the Bush Administration. They further claim that the investigation would embarrass the US and likely threaten US security. John McCain asked, "What's going to be the positive result from airing out and ventilating details of what we already knew took place and should never have? "And," added McCain, "we are committed to making sure it never happens again." McCain would have a stronger argument against an investigation if the guilty admitted their wrong doing and condemned their own acts. Without that the nation has not adequately admitted that wrongs were done, never should have been done and should not be done again. Without a full admission of guilt those who believe that wrongs were not done will commit, or permit others to commit, the same wrongs in the future.
I agree that a political motivation exists but politics must not also prevent the US from investigating criminal activity, especially within the government, and prosecuting those responsible for it. The US has already lost moral ground with other nations and the only way to recover it is to thoroughly investigate and prosecute these crimes. Finally, the only way to ensure that future administrations do not violate the law is to demonstrate that future violations will not go unpunished by punishing the violators within the Bush Administration.
I don't doubt that the country will be deeply split if the Department of Justice proceeds with this investigation but that is not a reason to ignore criminal acts. The country has been deeply split before and each time has risen from it a better country for fully enforcing our Constitution. The strongest example is the secession of the Southern slave states following the election of Abe Lincoln who campaigned against the expansion of slavery. The cost of doing the right thing was high but the need was greater.
Our Constitution is only as powerful as our commitment to enforce it. Enforcing the Constitution is not "politics as usual" it is a matter of Law and the survival of our Constitution.
Tuesday, June 09, 2009
Is GITMO any better than a North Korean trial?
The following was posted by Mitchell Bard on The Huffington Post:
"North Korea can seize two innocent journalists, put them through a bogus, private, star-chamber trial, and then sentence them to 12 years of hard labor, all without any justification. The United States I grew up in, the United States that fought wars from World War I to the Cold War defending democracy and freedom against repression, could never engage in such conduct like the North Koreans did. And yet, there it is, for all to read, that we took a man and locked him up without a trial for 7 1/2 years, torturing him while in our custody, even though two courts, one in the U.S. and one in Bosnia (one before his detention and one after), found insufficient evidence to charge him with any crime. While we clearly have a more open and democratic society than North Korea does, his experience with us was no better than what the two American journalists are now going through in North Korea. We have to recognize that Bush, Cheney and the rest of the gang did real damage to core American ideals, and that this damage is still being felt, both at home and abroad." Mitchell Bard's full story
Do you feel, like most Americans, that North Korea's treatment of two American Journalists is a crime and that North Korean leader Kim Jong-il is a criminal? Is the detention in GITMO without trial of suspected terrorists less criminal? If you are not just as outraged by the abuse of GITMO detainees as you are about the detention of two American journalists then, in my opinion, you have a serious moral deficiency.
"North Korea can seize two innocent journalists, put them through a bogus, private, star-chamber trial, and then sentence them to 12 years of hard labor, all without any justification. The United States I grew up in, the United States that fought wars from World War I to the Cold War defending democracy and freedom against repression, could never engage in such conduct like the North Koreans did. And yet, there it is, for all to read, that we took a man and locked him up without a trial for 7 1/2 years, torturing him while in our custody, even though two courts, one in the U.S. and one in Bosnia (one before his detention and one after), found insufficient evidence to charge him with any crime. While we clearly have a more open and democratic society than North Korea does, his experience with us was no better than what the two American journalists are now going through in North Korea. We have to recognize that Bush, Cheney and the rest of the gang did real damage to core American ideals, and that this damage is still being felt, both at home and abroad." Mitchell Bard's full story
Do you feel, like most Americans, that North Korea's treatment of two American Journalists is a crime and that North Korean leader Kim Jong-il is a criminal? Is the detention in GITMO without trial of suspected terrorists less criminal? If you are not just as outraged by the abuse of GITMO detainees as you are about the detention of two American journalists then, in my opinion, you have a serious moral deficiency.
Labels:
bush,
Cheney,
Gitmo,
guantanamo,
north korea,
rumsfeld
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Torture: It's illegal, Stupid!
Liz Cheney appeared on "Morning Joe" to defend her father's advocacy for enhanced interrogation. She argued that waterboarding as used by the CIA was legal. She argued that Department of Justice lawyers were within the law when they defined the limits within which waterboarding is legal. She argued that the White House is withholding information that proves that waterboarding was effective and consequently justified. The host of the show, Joe Scarborough, accused the White House of cherry-picking government records to release only negative documents regarding enhanced interrogation and withholding documents that would show that these methods were effective.
Torture is illegal. Nothing else matters. Joe Scarborough should apologize on air for defending the use of torture – for justifying a war crime. I think MSNBC should fire Scarborough and any of its personnel who defend the use torture and the violation of our laws and treaties. I'm tired of the suggestion that any rational person would use any means to extract information from a detainee that might save American lives. That's not true. It is immoral. It is inhuman. IT IS ILLEGAL.
If torture is justified by the admissions of the tortured and if admissions under torture are true, then witches possessed by Satan are REAL. The witch hunt in early modern Europe executed about 60,000 women, men and children for being witches possessed by Satan. Torture was the primary method employed to get a confession.
If you believe that torturing detainees is justified by the results, then you must also believe that tens of thousands of witches, in league with Satan, existed in early modern Europe. Since the witch hunt could not have eliminated all witches and surely did not end Satan’s ability to possess people and create witches, then you must also believe that there are thousands of witches in America that are possessed by Satan and using supernatural powers to do his will.
George W. Bush and Dick Cheney advised all patriotic Americans to watch their neighbors and report all unusual activity. They should also have advised us to watch for and report all “supernatural” activity. After all, a witch possessed by Satan is surely more dangerous than a terrorist serving Osama bin Laden.
Torture is illegal. Nothing else matters. Joe Scarborough should apologize on air for defending the use of torture – for justifying a war crime. I think MSNBC should fire Scarborough and any of its personnel who defend the use torture and the violation of our laws and treaties. I'm tired of the suggestion that any rational person would use any means to extract information from a detainee that might save American lives. That's not true. It is immoral. It is inhuman. IT IS ILLEGAL.
If torture is justified by the admissions of the tortured and if admissions under torture are true, then witches possessed by Satan are REAL. The witch hunt in early modern Europe executed about 60,000 women, men and children for being witches possessed by Satan. Torture was the primary method employed to get a confession.
If you believe that torturing detainees is justified by the results, then you must also believe that tens of thousands of witches, in league with Satan, existed in early modern Europe. Since the witch hunt could not have eliminated all witches and surely did not end Satan’s ability to possess people and create witches, then you must also believe that there are thousands of witches in America that are possessed by Satan and using supernatural powers to do his will.
George W. Bush and Dick Cheney advised all patriotic Americans to watch their neighbors and report all unusual activity. They should also have advised us to watch for and report all “supernatural” activity. After all, a witch possessed by Satan is surely more dangerous than a terrorist serving Osama bin Laden.
Unprecedented punishment for unprecedented crimes
The talking heads that oppose punishing the Bush administration for its war crimes say that such punishment would be unprecedented and therefore unjust. I disagree. There is no precedent for such punishment only because these crimes are unprecedented.
The more the Bush administration and its supporters argue that these crimes were justified by the circumstances or not crimes at all, the more the need to prosecute the criminals to the fullest extent of the law.
If we do not punish the criminals and silence their supporters, a future administration will again violate our Constitution and our treaties and argue that circumstances and executive privelege justified their actions.
The more the Bush administration and its supporters argue that these crimes were justified by the circumstances or not crimes at all, the more the need to prosecute the criminals to the fullest extent of the law.
If we do not punish the criminals and silence their supporters, a future administration will again violate our Constitution and our treaties and argue that circumstances and executive privelege justified their actions.
Monday, April 27, 2009
McCain Opposes Torture But Wouldn't Prosecute
McCain was on Face The Nation on April 26 to confirm that he is opposed to using torture but would neither investigate the matter further nor prosecute anybody involved. He said that the U.S. understands that the use of torture was wrong and will not use torture in the future. He said the country needs to move on. McCain feels that enough is known about what happened, how it happened and who was involved. He's concerned that if we criminalize bad legal advice, others will refuse to serve. He feels that the torture of detainees in Abu Ghraib lead to an increase in the number of people joining the Iraqi insurgency, however, he isn't concerned that other nations will ignore the Geneva Convention ban on torture because they know that they will held accountable if they do. Throughout the interview McCain maintained a straight face, appearing to believe everything that he was saying, and apparently confident that the majority of the TV audience would also believe him.
McCain is wrong. The people responsible for the use of torture do not agree that they were wrong and, led by Dick Cheney, continue to argue that waterboarding is not torture and in any case it was justified by information extracted from the detainees. As long as the debate exists there is a chance that future administrations will resort to torture. The U.S. does not know the process by which waterboarding and other forms of torture were approved. The U.S. does not know who was involved. I am not concerned about any person who will refuse to work for the government because he/she will be prosecuted if they violate the law or approve of others violating the law. I don't want people like that serving in our government in any capacity. The majority of U.S. citizens wants this matter investigated so that those responsible for approving and ordering the use of torture are punished according to the law.
The U.S. should punish its own violators to the same extent that past violators have been punished by the U.S. and to the same extent that we would punish other countries if they torture in the future. The U.S. is not above the law or the treaties it has signed and cannot be held to a different and more lenient standard. McCain's attitude that we need not punish ourselves but we will certainly punish others is unacceptable to me, unacceptable to the majority of our citizens and certainly unacceptable to the rest of the world.
McCain felt that President Ford did the right thing for America when he pardoned Richard Nixon and McCain feels that it would be appropriate for Obama to do the same thing by pardoning everybody that was involved in the torture of detainees. The situation is by no means the same. The U.S. thoroughly investigated and prosecuted everybody involved in the Watergate Break in and its cover-up. Only Richard Nixon was spared legal prosecution, however, he was not spared punishment. The country as a whole condemned his actions and he resigned the presidency in shame. Recent war crimes by the U.S. have not been investigated adequately. We do not know who is ultimately responsible for the crimes. The U.S. government has not determined officially that its treatment of detainees was a war crime. The U.S. government has not denounced those that continue to justify how the detainees were treated.
We have always prosecuted war criminals even when the crime was committed by our military. We should not make an exception for the war crimes committed during the Bush administration. To do so increases that likelihood that the U.S. and other countries will commit these crimes in the future.
McCain is wrong. The people responsible for the use of torture do not agree that they were wrong and, led by Dick Cheney, continue to argue that waterboarding is not torture and in any case it was justified by information extracted from the detainees. As long as the debate exists there is a chance that future administrations will resort to torture. The U.S. does not know the process by which waterboarding and other forms of torture were approved. The U.S. does not know who was involved. I am not concerned about any person who will refuse to work for the government because he/she will be prosecuted if they violate the law or approve of others violating the law. I don't want people like that serving in our government in any capacity. The majority of U.S. citizens wants this matter investigated so that those responsible for approving and ordering the use of torture are punished according to the law.
The U.S. should punish its own violators to the same extent that past violators have been punished by the U.S. and to the same extent that we would punish other countries if they torture in the future. The U.S. is not above the law or the treaties it has signed and cannot be held to a different and more lenient standard. McCain's attitude that we need not punish ourselves but we will certainly punish others is unacceptable to me, unacceptable to the majority of our citizens and certainly unacceptable to the rest of the world.
McCain felt that President Ford did the right thing for America when he pardoned Richard Nixon and McCain feels that it would be appropriate for Obama to do the same thing by pardoning everybody that was involved in the torture of detainees. The situation is by no means the same. The U.S. thoroughly investigated and prosecuted everybody involved in the Watergate Break in and its cover-up. Only Richard Nixon was spared legal prosecution, however, he was not spared punishment. The country as a whole condemned his actions and he resigned the presidency in shame. Recent war crimes by the U.S. have not been investigated adequately. We do not know who is ultimately responsible for the crimes. The U.S. government has not determined officially that its treatment of detainees was a war crime. The U.S. government has not denounced those that continue to justify how the detainees were treated.
We have always prosecuted war criminals even when the crime was committed by our military. We should not make an exception for the war crimes committed during the Bush administration. To do so increases that likelihood that the U.S. and other countries will commit these crimes in the future.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
The End does not always justify the Means
I'm shocked that so many people who were or are involved in governing the United States of America believe that torture is justified as long as it yields beneficial results. Is rape justified if the rapist has an orgasm? I say it is not and I feel the same way about torture.
Dick Cheney is calling for the government to release documents that will prove that beneficial information was gained through the use of torture. It doesn't make any difference; torture is wrong. Rape is wrong. Cheney was and is wrong.
I think that Obama made a mistake when he ordered that no CIA personnel could be punished for using torture. I think his recommendation to look forward and not into the past is foolish. All crimes are acts of the past; should we not punish all criminals? Following orders is not an excuse. 9-11 is not an excuse. Protecting America is no excuse for torture. We punished, in fact we executed, many government officials and military personnel that claimed that they were only following orders when they used torture during WWII. Was that time less dangerous than during the Bush presidency after 9-11? No. Are our torturers less guilty? No.
In my opinion Obama is obligated to enforce the laws of this country and our treaties. The Dept of Justice should investigate and prosecute these "admitted" crimes without exception. High rank and high office does not put one above the law and exempt from punishment. Nixon was wrong when he said "it's not a crime when you are the president." It is, in my opinion, a bigger crime deserving of harsher punishment when it is committed by the president.
If these criminals, especially those responsible for justifying and ordering the use of torture, go unpunished it will open the door for future leaders to do the same when they feel events justify it. Who have we become if we do less?
Dick Cheney is calling for the government to release documents that will prove that beneficial information was gained through the use of torture. It doesn't make any difference; torture is wrong. Rape is wrong. Cheney was and is wrong.
I think that Obama made a mistake when he ordered that no CIA personnel could be punished for using torture. I think his recommendation to look forward and not into the past is foolish. All crimes are acts of the past; should we not punish all criminals? Following orders is not an excuse. 9-11 is not an excuse. Protecting America is no excuse for torture. We punished, in fact we executed, many government officials and military personnel that claimed that they were only following orders when they used torture during WWII. Was that time less dangerous than during the Bush presidency after 9-11? No. Are our torturers less guilty? No.
In my opinion Obama is obligated to enforce the laws of this country and our treaties. The Dept of Justice should investigate and prosecute these "admitted" crimes without exception. High rank and high office does not put one above the law and exempt from punishment. Nixon was wrong when he said "it's not a crime when you are the president." It is, in my opinion, a bigger crime deserving of harsher punishment when it is committed by the president.
If these criminals, especially those responsible for justifying and ordering the use of torture, go unpunished it will open the door for future leaders to do the same when they feel events justify it. Who have we become if we do less?
Sunday, January 18, 2009
War Criminals Must Be Prosecuted
Obama and his appointees seem reluctant to investigate U.S. war crimes committed while George W. Bush was president. We should not treat our war criminals differently than we have treated war criminals from other countries. War crimes were committed; of that there is no question. We already know at least two of the people who committed these crimes. In the last few weeks President Bush and Vice President Cheney admitted on television that they ordered the use of torture in violation of U.S. law and multiple treaties. In spite of their claim, being President and Vice President does not put them above ANY U.S. law or treaty. They asked a Bush appointed Department of Justice lawyer if the types of torture that they wanted to use were legal as if that was enough to protect them from prosecution. If we let these crimes go unpunished we are as guilty they are.
This is not a party issue or liberal versus conservative or Christian versus non-Christian. Some of the people who support Bush and his use of torture will use the Iraq war, the defense of our nation and patriotism as justifications. Bush’s supporters will accuse me of being anti-war, weak on defense and/or unpatriotic. These, true or not, have nothing to do with my call for war crimes prosecution. These acts were criminal regardless of the context within which they were committed.
Torturing prisoners of war and “detainees” did not save any lives and it did not prevent other terrorist attacks on the U.S. Experts, including the FBI, have always maintained that torture does not yield valuable information and, in spite of such claims by Bush and Cheney, investigators say that none of the information obtained was helpful. What we know to be true is that torturing cost American and allied lives in the war in Iraq. It was a rallying call to all extremist Muslims to join the fight in Iraq. It inspired the enemy to begin beheading their captives, both military and civilian.
If we let our war criminals go unpunished we send a clear message to all future presidents that they are above the law and free to violate international treaties. If we let them go unpunished we will lose the respect of other nations and the right to expect them to honor our treaties.
I call for Obama to investigate all claims of war crime and to prosecute the criminals without prejudice or favor.
This is not a party issue or liberal versus conservative or Christian versus non-Christian. Some of the people who support Bush and his use of torture will use the Iraq war, the defense of our nation and patriotism as justifications. Bush’s supporters will accuse me of being anti-war, weak on defense and/or unpatriotic. These, true or not, have nothing to do with my call for war crimes prosecution. These acts were criminal regardless of the context within which they were committed.
Torturing prisoners of war and “detainees” did not save any lives and it did not prevent other terrorist attacks on the U.S. Experts, including the FBI, have always maintained that torture does not yield valuable information and, in spite of such claims by Bush and Cheney, investigators say that none of the information obtained was helpful. What we know to be true is that torturing cost American and allied lives in the war in Iraq. It was a rallying call to all extremist Muslims to join the fight in Iraq. It inspired the enemy to begin beheading their captives, both military and civilian.
If we let our war criminals go unpunished we send a clear message to all future presidents that they are above the law and free to violate international treaties. If we let them go unpunished we will lose the respect of other nations and the right to expect them to honor our treaties.
I call for Obama to investigate all claims of war crime and to prosecute the criminals without prejudice or favor.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)